| -opendevstatus- NOTICE: the gerrit service (https://review.opendev.org) is currently down, please be patient while we work on restoring it | 07:35 | |
| *** iurygregory_ is now known as iurygregory | 11:15 | |
| -opendevstatus- NOTICE: the gerrit service (https://review.opendev.org) is back up. We believe the restoration is complete. If you notice any issues please report them in #opendev ASAP | 11:56 | |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/security-doc master: Bump minimum tox version to 4.6 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/security-doc/+/955057 | 12:21 |
|---|---|---|
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/security-doc master: Bump minimum tox version to 4.6 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/security-doc/+/955057 | 12:23 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/security-doc master: Bump minimum tox version to 4.6 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/security-doc/+/955057 | 12:24 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/security-doc master: Bump minimum tox version to 4.6 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/security-doc/+/955057 | 12:26 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/security-doc master: Bump minimum tox version to 4.6 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/security-doc/+/955057 | 14:17 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/security-doc master: Bump minimum tox version to 3.18.0 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/security-doc/+/955057 | 14:17 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/security-doc master: Bump minimum tox version to 3.18.0 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/security-doc/+/955057 | 14:20 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/security-doc master: Bump minimum tox version to 3.18.0 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/security-doc/+/955057 | 14:27 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/training-guides master: wip https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/training-guides/+/955075 | 14:33 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/training-guides master: wip https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/training-guides/+/955075 | 14:34 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/security-doc master: Bump minimum tox version to 3.18.0 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/security-doc/+/955057 | 15:16 |
| gouthamr | tc-members: gentle reminder that our weekly meeting will happen here in ~44 minutes | 16:16 |
| cardoe | Asking in a generic place... wasn't there something somewhere (maybe devstack?) that for volumev3 we're leaving the tenant_id out of the service catalog path? | 16:32 |
| gouthamr | things will still work with project_id in the path, but, if you have v3.67, you don’t need it | 16:34 |
| gouthamr | https://docs.openstack.org/api-ref/block-storage/v3/ | 16:34 |
| gouthamr | This was done with a microversion bump (like Manila) | 16:35 |
| cardoe | thank you gouthamr. I just see in OpenStack Helm they're registering it with it in the path... https://opendev.org/openstack/openstack-helm/src/commit/087091663f2077214ae7efd5c80fbdee9bb10697/cinder/values.yaml#L1439 | 16:51 |
| cardoe | Was gonna change the default to not do that. | 16:51 |
| gmaan | cardoe: we recently removed project_id from cinder catalogs path | 16:55 |
| gmaan | cardoe: this is set of changes from Stephen on getting rid of those and duplicate accounts created by devstack https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22remove-cinder-v2-crud%22 | 16:56 |
| gouthamr | you'll need at least API version 3.67 though (Yoga) | 16:56 |
| gouthamr | this is helm master, so yeah i think its appropriate to drop it | 16:57 |
| cardoe | yeah it only goes back to supporting 2024.1 | 16:57 |
| gouthamr | #startmeeting tc | 17:00 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting started Tue Jul 15 17:00:38 2025 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is gouthamr. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 17:00 |
| opendevmeet | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 17:00 |
| opendevmeet | The meeting name has been set to 'tc' | 17:00 |
| gouthamr | Welcome to the weekly meeting of the OpenStack Technical Committee. A reminder that this meeting is held under the OpenInfra Code of Conduct available at https://openinfra.dev/legal/code-of-conduct. | 17:00 |
| gouthamr | Today's meeting agenda can be found at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee | 17:00 |
| gouthamr | #topic Roll Call | 17:00 |
| gmaan | o/ | 17:01 |
| noonedeadpunk | o/ | 17:01 |
| frickler | \o | 17:01 |
| cardoe | o/ | 17:01 |
| spotz[m] | o/ | 17:01 |
| gouthamr | courtesy-ping: gtema, mnasiadka, bauzas | 17:03 |
| mnasiadka | o/ | 17:03 |
| bauzas | o/ | 17:03 |
| gtema | Sorry, forgot to mention earlier, I have another appointment | 17:04 |
| gouthamr | ack gtema | 17:04 |
| gouthamr | let's get started.. | 17:04 |
| gouthamr | #topic Last Week's AIs | 17:05 |
| gouthamr | we had a few: | 17:05 |
| gouthamr | bauzas was going to post an update to the eventlet timeline change proposal | 17:05 |
| gouthamr | looks like he did: | 17:05 |
| gouthamr | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/952903 (Make Eventlet removal deadlines more acceptable for operators) | 17:05 |
| gouthamr | i'd like hberaud to weigh in since he's the goal champion.. i'll poke him on #openstack-eventlet-removal | 17:06 |
| gouthamr | i took an AI to remind project teams to clean out references to the CLA - this is WIP, i have a bunch of changes myself and i'll follow up with any teams individually, most of these look trivial | 17:07 |
| bauzas | cool | 17:07 |
| gouthamr | spotz[m] has submitted a proposal for a Forum session with the TC at the OpenInfra Summit, meet-and-greet style | 17:07 |
| gouthamr | mnasiadka took an AI regarding adding a doc banner on inactive projects (monasca) | 17:08 |
| gouthamr | ^ any updates to report here, mnasiadka? | 17:09 |
| mnasiadka | Haven't got to that yet, will try this week - but if I fail to do so - I'm off 21st July to 4th August | 17:09 |
| gouthamr | ack | 17:09 |
| gouthamr | thanks mnasiadka | 17:09 |
| gouthamr | reminds me to note that i'll be lurking here myself until the end of the month, but not "working" :) | 17:10 |
| gouthamr | on the proposal to retire monasca.. we noted that there's a procedure to follow to actually pursue | 17:11 |
| gouthamr | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/953671 | 17:11 |
| gouthamr | ^ we wanted to get monasca's PTL and contributors chiming in .. | 17:11 |
| gouthamr | i just copied the core team there and posed a couple of questions, but we'll take it to the ML in case these folks aren't subscribed to gerrit emails | 17:11 |
| gmaan | did we send it on ML? maybe that can help | 17:12 |
| gouthamr | #action start a mail thread on monasca's status (gouthamr) | 17:12 |
| gouthamr | ^ nope, step 2 | 17:12 |
| gmaan | yeah, last time, PTl replied on ML | 17:12 |
| gmaan | PTL | 17:12 |
| gouthamr | ack, will do gmaan | 17:13 |
| gmaan | ++ | 17:13 |
| gouthamr | the last AI was also around the CLA in gerrit.. clarkb and fungi noted that this will take some time and will be combined with other gerrit updates | 17:14 |
| fungi | yeah, we've already announced the configuration removal | 17:14 |
| gouthamr | i called out that we aren't enforcing the CLA in gerrit, except its still accepting signatures | 17:14 |
| fungi | #link https://lists.opendev.org/archives/list/service-announce@lists.opendev.org/thread/GWG7G3WBMGSDOFVC72TPDCADR4VUE5N2/ Removal of CLA enforcement and configuration in Gerrit | 17:15 |
| fungi | so friday of this week | 17:15 |
| gouthamr | thank you, i was looking in service-discuss | 17:16 |
| gouthamr | perfect | 17:16 |
| gouthamr | wow, codesearch tells me there are 277 references to "requireContributorAgreement = true" in project-config | 17:17 |
| gouthamr | that's all the AIs i see from the past week, was anyone tracking/working on anything else? | 17:18 |
| gouthamr | alright lets move on.. | 17:19 |
| gouthamr | #topic Refreshing service-types-authority maintainers | 17:19 |
| gouthamr | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/953548 | 17:20 |
| gouthamr | ^ the discussion happened on the patch and on this channel | 17:20 |
| gouthamr | iirc, we (the TC) inherited this repo.. and we're not actively "maintaining" it.. | 17:21 |
| gmaan | yeah, there are volunteer to maintain this repo | 17:21 |
| gmaan | we can keep it under TC but can add more contributor to maintain it as core | 17:21 |
| cardoe | Who volunteered? | 17:21 |
| gmaan | sdk team | 17:21 |
| gouthamr | what's the problem adding this group? | 17:22 |
| gouthamr | #link https://review.opendev.org/admin/groups/df83b1d09c45aa21bd95f6a502c71e3c9b7d2999,members | 17:22 |
| gouthamr | #undo | 17:22 |
| opendevmeet | Removing item from minutes: #link https://review.opendev.org/admin/groups/df83b1d09c45aa21bd95f6a502c71e3c9b7d2999,members | 17:22 |
| gouthamr | #link https://review.opendev.org/admin/groups/openstacksdk-core,members | 17:22 |
| gmaan | well, frickler has good point of adding explicit member instead og group | 17:22 |
| gmaan | of | 17:22 |
| gouthamr | my problem is then maintaining that list of people :) | 17:22 |
| gmaan | that is what will be explicit and people knows whom to ping to merge the things | 17:23 |
| gouthamr | openstacksdk-core is actively maintained by the PTL/core folks of the project, and we can trust them to care for this repo, imo | 17:23 |
| gmaan | I do not think that group is all up to dated | 17:23 |
| gouthamr | ? | 17:23 |
| gouthamr | it is | 17:23 |
| gmaan | and that is why i do not think we should add | 17:23 |
| gouthamr | do you see anyone there that isn't part of openstacksdk's maintenance? | 17:24 |
| gmaan | are all these members active in sdks #link https://review.opendev.org/admin/groups/df83b1d09c45aa21bd95f6a502c71e3c9b7d2999,members | 17:24 |
| gouthamr | yes, from what i can tell.. i've interacted with most of those folks on different topics for the sdk/cli | 17:25 |
| gmaan | most but not all | 17:25 |
| gmaan | anyways my point is if we want to add sdk group I would like to ask those member are ok to maintain it | 17:25 |
| gmaan | if not all are ok then we should not add group and ask explicit members who are interested in maintaining service-types-authority | 17:26 |
| gmaan | adding group as whole does not solve issue of things not getting merged but explicit interest from people and adding them can | 17:27 |
| gouthamr | i feel like the "authority" in the repo's name is making this a special case.. openstacksdk and CLI are pretty canonical, but the TC doesn't actively maintain them.. this is in the same bucket, imho | 17:27 |
| gouthamr | i don't know any other direct consumers of this stuff.. | 17:27 |
| noonedeadpunk | so um | 17:28 |
| noonedeadpunk | I am a little bit confused then | 17:28 |
| gouthamr | i'm okay for the TC to relinquish control of the repo to the sdk-core.. but, if you disagree, it's worth just adding them all as co-maintainers so they can have as much control over it as any TC member | 17:28 |
| noonedeadpunk | as the repository basically defines a canonical names i nthe catalog? | 17:29 |
| gouthamr | yes, that's all it does :) because at one time in our history we had a lot of "conflicting" services and arcane names | 17:29 |
| gmaan | gouthamr: sure, but I do not want to add them without asking them and until they agree to maintain it | 17:29 |
| noonedeadpunk | and pretty much any new type of service or re-naming in the catalog I'd assume should be going through the TC anyway? | 17:29 |
| gmaan | we can ask it on ML and who all show interest then we can add them | 17:29 |
| noonedeadpunk | so should not it be us at the first place to be interested in maintaining it? | 17:30 |
| gmaan | noonedeadpunk: ++ consistent naming is important and TC has discussed in past. | 17:30 |
| gmaan | my first preference is TC start maintain it as main repo but we did not | 17:30 |
| noonedeadpunk | as it's really like one of "core" repos, based of which other projects are governed partially | 17:31 |
| gmaan | I think it came under TC from doc SIG or so | 17:31 |
| fungi | can't the sdks team just adopt it as a deliverable? | 17:31 |
| gmaan | there was discussion about that in gerrit | 17:31 |
| gmaan | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/953548/comments/0cdf6463_6f83c47d | 17:31 |
| frickler | that's what was proposed, but I'm arguing that it should stay with the TC | 17:32 |
| noonedeadpunk | ++ | 17:32 |
| gmaan | ++ I agree ^^ | 17:32 |
| gouthamr | the argument that frickler had was "not only apply an SDK-centric view on this, but also involve developer and deployer perspectives" | 17:32 |
| gouthamr | i agree with this | 17:32 |
| gmaan | and if anyone interested to help I am not against of adding them but adding group or hand over to other group is not best solution | 17:33 |
| noonedeadpunk | and given that tc is generally represented by such groups... :) | 17:33 |
| noonedeadpunk | right | 17:33 |
| gouthamr | but i still want the sdk team tacked on it as a whole.. don't want to piecemeal this.. because stephenfin or gtema may be interested in fixing something today, but tomorrow they can move on, and the TC wouldn't need to find other interested voices on the sdk team | 17:33 |
| noonedeadpunk | though if we are adding extgra groups, we still should be keeping an eye on what's happening there | 17:34 |
| gmaan | gouthamr: maybe one extra task for chair/meeting, but we should start tracking open reviews on TC own repo . at least that will remind us to reviews the repo other then governance | 17:34 |
| gouthamr | +1 i can add it | 17:34 |
| noonedeadpunk | we can get a review board | 17:34 |
| gmaan | as a code maintainer and governance repo as governance things | 17:34 |
| gouthamr | yeah | 17:34 |
| gmaan | thanks | 17:35 |
| noonedeadpunk | and also marked projhects we're responsible for as parents to TC in gerrit | 17:35 |
| gmaan | so coming back to this topic | 17:35 |
| noonedeadpunk | then we could use a filter like `parentproject` | 17:35 |
| gmaan | should we ask volunteer on ML or TC commit to maintain it by themself ? | 17:35 |
| noonedeadpunk | not sure if it's suitable in this case... | 17:35 |
| noonedeadpunk | but eases maintaining a list you need to be on top of | 17:36 |
| gmaan | it should stay under TC but question is do we need more maintainers or TC can handle | 17:36 |
| gmaan | noonedeadpunk: ok | 17:36 |
| noonedeadpunk | so I think that TC should be able to handle reviews there? | 17:36 |
| noonedeadpunk | and contributions are always welcome, to any repo? | 17:36 |
| gmaan | cool, I will add it in my review list | 17:36 |
| noonedeadpunk | I could be wrong, I just brefily looked through the content of it | 17:37 |
| gouthamr | #link https://service-types.openstack.org/ | 17:38 |
| noonedeadpunk | and it looked like this thing is the main asset there: https://opendev.org/openstack/service-types-authority/src/branch/master/service-types.yaml | 17:38 |
| noonedeadpunk | rest is more or less supporting/hooks around it | 17:38 |
| gouthamr | yeah it probably needs a bunch of cleanup | 17:39 |
| gouthamr | there's old cruft there by the looks of it.. | 17:39 |
| noonedeadpunk | oh yes, sure | 17:39 |
| gmaan | mostly schema etc too | 17:39 |
| gmaan | it is very low maintenance things but important stuff to maintain as consistently | 17:39 |
| gouthamr | which i think openstacksdk-core has the energy/motivation to do.. | 17:40 |
| noonedeadpunk | well, I mean. I don't need to have a +W on nova or cinder if I'm maintaining some driver or depend on it | 17:40 |
| noonedeadpunk | I think I less care about schema/generation stuff ratgher then any potential changes to that yaml | 17:41 |
| noonedeadpunk | which should be done pretty much only with tc approval | 17:41 |
| gmaan | yeah make sense. | 17:42 |
| noonedeadpunk | and also I don't really understand why absent +W prevents from doing some clean-up/changes in a repo | 17:43 |
| gmaan | these are open changes, mainly trivial if anyone would like to merge. I am +2 on mostly | 17:43 |
| noonedeadpunk | or proposing them, | 17:43 |
| gmaan | #link https://review.opendev.org/q/project:openstack/service-types-authority+status:open | 17:43 |
| gmaan | I think if we keep reviewing and merging the housekeeping work then its all good. and keep eyes on any major change | 17:44 |
| noonedeadpunk | ok, doing reviews is indeed smth we should do and I'll also go through them now | 17:44 |
| gouthamr | +1 | 17:44 |
| gmaan | thanks | 17:44 |
| mnasiadka | Not that I'm complaining, but is there a Gerrit dashboard that covers all TC maintained repos? I'm not that good in reading emails from Gerrit ;-) | 17:44 |
| gouthamr | we should make a new one | 17:45 |
| gmaan | I used to have one but not sure if that is there in my browser history | 17:45 |
| gmaan | I can check and link here after meeting | 17:45 |
| gouthamr | #link https://gerrit-dash-creator.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ | 17:45 |
| gouthamr | ^ maybe using this.. that's a good AI to come out of this :) | 17:45 |
| gouthamr | i don't want to sound like a broken record, i don't think it's a good move for us to add interested maintainers since a team can handle maintenance of all logically connected things better than individuals can, and we'll bottleneck this.. but, it looks like gmaan and frickler have good points as to why adding individuals would be better.. anyone else have any strong opinions for or against? | 17:46 |
| gouthamr | if not, i think the individuals you mean to add could start with stephenfin? do you want to offer it up to the ML? | 17:46 |
| noonedeadpunk | oh, I thought it's also installed... | 17:47 |
| gmaan | I think noonedeadpunk pointed that we should keep it in TC as core and welcome other to propose things or even review | 17:47 |
| gouthamr | oh, how did i misread that? | 17:47 |
| gmaan | if TC is ok to maintain which seems yes then I am ok to continue that as it is. no change in core group needed | 17:47 |
| noonedeadpunk | though I failed so far to convert some of dashboard s to it :( | 17:48 |
| gouthamr | so our AI would be that we try to get better at reviews for this repo/' | 17:48 |
| gouthamr | ?* | 17:48 |
| gmaan | ++ and include other TC owned repo also in the review checks in meeting or so | 17:48 |
| gouthamr | yes | 17:48 |
| gmaan | thanks | 17:49 |
| gouthamr | okay, ty for bringing this up | 17:49 |
| spotz[m] | ++ | 17:49 |
| gouthamr | #link https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/technical-committee-repos.html | 17:49 |
| noonedeadpunk | or come up with dashboard and use it for reviews :) | 17:49 |
| gmaan | yeah ^^ | 17:49 |
| gouthamr | yes, any volunteers to craft a fancy gerrit dashboard? | 17:49 |
| noonedeadpunk | I can try that... I did for OSA a sweet dashboard, except failed to pass it to creator... | 17:50 |
| gouthamr | i think creator was abandoned on the wayside | 17:50 |
| gouthamr | but please do link us when you do noonedeadpunk | 17:50 |
| fungi | i suspected it might be, but i saw commits merged in it last year | 17:51 |
| gouthamr | ah, who's active there? | 17:51 |
| fungi | looks like ironic folks were doing stuff in it | 17:51 |
| gouthamr | i think the first contact SIG folks may be interested in maintaining that :) | 17:51 |
| fungi | so guessing they're relying on it | 17:51 |
| spotz[m] | First Contact SIG hasn't met in ages | 17:52 |
| fungi | yeah, as chair i'd also be fine moving it under the tact sig | 17:52 |
| fungi | since it's related to openstack's use of testing and collaboration tools | 17:52 |
| gmaan | afaik, first contact SIG is not active much, I am one of the member there and not seen any activity since year or long | 17:52 |
| gouthamr | that'd be awesome fungi | 17:52 |
| gouthamr | low maintenance i'd assume, but famous last words.. if this is active, we can encourage core teams to start throwing in dashboard links that they can make up | 17:53 |
| fungi | i'm not committing to review changes or maintain it, just welcoming the people who are taking care of it under the sig so they get some additional recognition as an official effort within the community | 17:53 |
| fungi | and it could also get renamed to openstack/gerrit-dash-creator if they're interested in doing so, if it were under a sig | 17:54 |
| gouthamr | the activity on First Contact SIG has been mainly around university internships, spearheaded by diablo_rojo | 17:55 |
| gouthamr | we've done like tens of these over the past few years, i think.. but, maybe the efforts like workshops at summits, other conferences etc are happening through different folks' efforts (spotz[m] for instance).. so the group exists, but, things are being driven pretty dynamically | 17:56 |
| gouthamr | lets chat about this after the meeting if necessary.. i'm interested :) | 17:57 |
| spotz[m] | Well the group met for a while but with the different timezones attendance declined to nothing. OUI hasn't been run in ages. I know diablo_rojo does stuff with the universities and they may use some of the materials but I personally wasn't aware that was being called part of the first contact SIG | 17:57 |
| gmaan | one of the main motive to form this group was monitor new contributors and help them to onbaord in projects | 17:58 |
| gmaan | we used to do that with this biweekly work | 17:58 |
| gmaan | #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/First_Contact_SIG#Biweekly_Homework | 17:58 |
| gmaan | which has been stopped for years | 17:58 |
| gouthamr | i see, yeah some of that wasn't sustainable | 17:58 |
| spotz[m] | And mentoring program died out, the cohort idea didn't turn things around as hoped | 17:59 |
| gouthamr | ack.. | 17:59 |
| gouthamr | time check, we just have a minute left, i can ask if diablo_rojo_phone can join us in a future meeting to discuss the SIG | 18:00 |
| gouthamr | (ugh, i took the minute to type that out) | 18:00 |
| fungi | the original catalyst was the bursts of low-value changes getting proposed by companies trying to increase their stackalytics ranking, and the hope that the community could steer them toward more productive contributions | 18:00 |
| gouthamr | does anyone have anything else to note in the minutes today | 18:00 |
| gmaan | but anything we are stuck due to First Contact SIG ? or we are checking on all SIG status? | 18:01 |
| gouthamr | i think a while ago we wanted to check on all the SIGs | 18:01 |
| gmaan | I am little confused on topic got diverted in First Contact SIG | 18:01 |
| fungi | in theory the sigs should all be checking in periodically so we can figure out which ones are still active | 18:01 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/service-types-authority master: Replace deprecated classes, functions https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/service-types-authority/+/953559 | 18:01 |
| gmaan | yeah, we can do that as part of SIG check | 18:01 |
| gmaan | fungi: ++ | 18:02 |
| gouthamr | if you'd like i can start a series of SIG checks during these meetings | 18:02 |
| fungi | gmaan: it started with the suggestion of fc sig adopting gerrit-dash-creator | 18:02 |
| gmaan | or maybe in PTG or every cycle like we started DPL model projects | 18:02 |
| fungi | so yes, a tangent | 18:02 |
| gouthamr | okay, i can think about how to do it at the PTG | 18:03 |
| gouthamr | thanks for staying on the extra few minutes | 18:04 |
| gouthamr | and for the review attention to service-types-authority | 18:04 |
| gouthamr | lets catch up with this meeting again next week, don't drop the chatter in the meantime | 18:04 |
| gouthamr | #endmeeting | 18:04 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting ended Tue Jul 15 18:04:40 2025 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 18:04 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2025/tc.2025-07-15-17.00.html | 18:04 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2025/tc.2025-07-15-17.00.txt | 18:04 |
| opendevmeet | Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2025/tc.2025-07-15-17.00.log.html | 18:04 |
| cardoe | :) good work all | 18:04 |
| spotz[m] | Thanks all | 18:05 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/service-types-authority master: Use argparse https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/service-types-authority/+/953560 | 18:31 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/service-types-authority master: Bump JSON Schema version https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/service-types-authority/+/953561 | 18:31 |
| opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/governance master: Fix project_stats_check script https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/955108 | 21:08 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 4.0.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!